PREHAB FAI- Prehabilitation for patients undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome -Protocol for an assessor blinded randomised controlled feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The past decade has seen an exponential growth of minimally invasive surgical procedures. Procedures such as hip arthroscopy have rapidly grown and become the standard of care for patients with Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome (FAIS). Although, the results of such procedures are encouraging, a large proportion of patients do not achieve optimal outcomes due to chronicity and deconditioning as a result of delay in diagnosis and increased waiting times amongst other factors. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials, moderate certainty evidence supported prehabilitation over standard care in optimising several domains including muscle strength, pain and health related quality of life in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgical interventions. However, the role of prehabilitation in patients with FAI syndrome undergoing hip arthroscopy has received little attention. AIM: To evaluate the feasibility, suitability, acceptability and safety of a prehabilitation programme for FAI to inform a future definitive randomised control trial to assess effectiveness. METHODS: A systematically developed prehabilitation intervention based on a literature review and international consensus will be utilised in this study. A mixed methodology encompassing a two-arm randomised parallel study alongside an embedded qualitative component will be used to answer the study objectives. Patients will be recruited from a tertiary referral NHS centre for young adult hip pathology in the UK. Patient reported outcomes such as iHOT-12, Brief Pain Inventory Scale (Short form), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Patient Global Impression of Change score will be obtained alongside objective measurements such as Muscle Strength and Star Excursion Balance Test at various time points. Outcome measures will be obtained at baseline (prior to prehabilitation intervention), after prehabilitation before surgery, and at 6 weeks+/- 4 weeks and 6 months +/- 4 weeks (planned primary endpoint for definitive RCT) postoperatively when participants attend the research site for clinical care and remotely at 12 months +/- 4 weeks postoperatively. Mean change and 95% CI, and effect size of outcome measures will be used to determine the sample size for a future RCT. For the qualitative component, in depth face-to-face semi-structured interviews with physiotherapists and focus groups with participants will be conducted to assess the feasibility, suitability, and acceptability of the prehabilitation intervention using a predetermined success criteria. All qualitative data will be recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. DISCUSSION: This study will be first of its kind to evaluate a systematically developed prehabilitation intervention for patients with FAIS undergoing hip arthroscopy. This study will provide important preliminary data to inform feasibility of a definitive RCT in the future to evaluate effectiveness of a prehabilitation intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 15371248, 09/03/2023. TRIAL PROTOCOL: Version 2.3, 26th June 2023.

Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Prehabilitation programs for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery have been gaining popularity in recent years. However, the current literature has produced varying results. Objective: To evaluate whether prehabilitation is associated with improved preoperative and postoperative outcomes compared with usual care for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Data Sources: Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], AMED [Allied and Complementary Medicine], Embase, PEDRO [Physiotherapy Evidence Database], and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for published trials, and the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, and European clinical trials registry were searched for unpublished trials from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing prehabilitation with standard care for any orthopedic surgical procedure were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers screened trials. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Recommendations were determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system and the study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pain, function, muscle strength, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Results: Forty-eight unique trials involving 3570 unique participants (2196 women [61.5%]; mean [SD] age, 64.1 [9.1] years) were analyzed. Preoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence favoring prehabilitation was reported for patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) for function (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.70 [95% CI, -1.08 to -0.32]) and muscle strength and flexion (SMD, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.23-1.77]) and for patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) for HRQOL on the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (weighted mean difference [WMD], 7.35 [95% CI, 3.15-11.54]) and muscle strength and abduction (SMD, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.03-2.02]). High-certainty evidence was reported for patients undergoing lumbar surgery for back pain (WMD, -8.20 [95% CI, -8.85 to -7.55]) and moderate-certainty evidence for HRQOL (SMD, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.13-0.78]). Postoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence favoring prehabilitation was reported for function at 6 weeks in patients undergoing TKR (SMD, -0.51 [95% CI, -0.85 to -0.17]) and at 6 months in those undergoing lumbar surgery (SMD, -2.35 [95% CI, -3.92 to -0.79]). Other differences in outcomes favoring prehabilitation were of low to very low quality of evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence supported prehabilitation over usual care in improving preoperative function and strength in TKR and HRQOL and muscle strength in THR, high-certainty evidence in reducing back pain, and moderate-certainty evidence in improving HRQOL in lumbar surgery. Postoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence supported prehabilitation for function following TKR at 6 weeks and lumbar surgery at 6 months. Prehabilitation showed promising results for other outcomes, although high risk of bias and heterogeneity affected overall quality of evidence. Additional RCTs with a low risk of bias investigating preoperative and postoperative outcomes for all orthopedic surgical procedures are required.

Advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics-a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: As the demand for rehabilitation in orthopaedics increases, so too has the development in advanced rehabilitation technology. However, to date, there are no review papers outlining the broad scope of advanced rehabilitation technology used within the orthopaedic population. The aim of this study is to identify, describe and summarise the evidence for efficacy for all advanced rehabilitation technologies applicable to orthopaedic practice. METHODS: The relevant literature describing the use of advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics was identified from appropriate electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) and a narrative review undertaken. RESULTS: Advanced rehabilitation technologies were classified into two groups: hospital-based and home-based rehabilitation. In the hospital-based technology group, we describe the use of continuous passive motion and robotic devices (after spinal cord injury) and their effect on improving clinical outcomes. We also report on the use of electromagnetic sensor technology for measuring kinematics of upper and lower limbs during rehabilitation. In the home-based technology group, we describe the use of inertial sensors, smartphones, software applications and commercial game hardware that are relatively inexpensive, user-friendly and widely available. We outline the evidence for videoconferencing for promoting knowledge and motivation for rehabilitation as well as the emerging role of virtual reality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics is promising and evidence for its efficacy is generally supportive.

Effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Undergoing major surgery can induce physical and functional decline. Prehabilitation programmes aim to improve physical fitness and function preoperatively and could enhance postoperative recovery and outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions have been utilised across a range of orthopaedic populations of all ages and can be multimodal in nature. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery including day surgery procedures. It will also investigate the components of prehabilitation to understand optimum duration and frequency of programmes. METHODS/DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, PEDro and Cochrane CENTRAL databases in order to identify randomised control trials published between January 2000 to 25 March 2019. ISI Web of Science, System for information on grey literature and the European Union clinical trials registry will identify studies that are underway or unpublished. Two independent reviewers will carry out the searches, study selection (title and abstract and full text stages), data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0) and evaluation of overall strength of evidence. Meta-analyses will be used for data which demonstrates homogeneity, otherwise a narrative synthesis will be performed for groups of studies of high heterogeneity (I2 >50%). The overall strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study raises no ethical issues. This study aims to identify the effectiveness of prehabilitation interventions and may assist clinicians in determining which components, duration, frequency and the method of delivery would form the most effective prehabilitation intervention for patients undergoing an orthopaedic surgical procedure. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019123268.